Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Yes... it is not something to be proud of, if something drives out fresh from factory, should not have any signs of rust at all. And installation of new fancy electronics, does not make great design either.

 

[farhan_9909]

lol not again

Ok tell me the perfect tank with no or most minimum design flaws
to be precise turret geometry design flaws ?

 

[Damian]

Ok tell me the perfect tank with no or most minimum design flaws
to be precise turret geometry design flaws ?

There are two schools that solved this problem perfectly, but with two different solutions with several advantages and disadvantages.

First is Soviet school that solved that problem by drastic inclination of side turret armor to hide it behind frontal armor, so it is not visible for enemy, firing to a tank 60 degrees frontal arc.

Example turets of T-72B/T-90, T-84M and T-90A.

Advantages:

- Small size of turret,
- Less weight of turret,

Disadvantages:

- Weak side protection, vurnable to direct side shots,
- Possible problems with turret balance due to very heavy front.

Another school is western school where side armor is more exposed, but protected by very thick composite armor modules.

Advantages:

- More uniform protection not only at the frontal 60 degrees arc, but also beyond,
- Better protection against direct side shots,
- Better turret balance due to counterweight in form of thick side armor and turret bustle,

Disadvantages:

- Turret is bigger,
- More weight of turret.

And for Your informations, these drawings are based on exterior and interior photos, messures on real tanks, and eventually estimations when no other possibility to do messurements was in our range. It is also based on different sources, official and non official.

These are two, best tank designing schools, Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) and NATO, the Asian tank designing school is somewhat strange, because designers there start to mix up design solution from both older designing schools, and these design solution from two different sources are not exactly suited to work well with eachother.

For example turret geometry is mostly takes from NATO tanks, but with armor placement like in Soviet tanks, it means that side armor is exposed and have weak protection made from simple and thin RHA armor.

I do not know why in Asia it is done that way, it just looks like designers there are not familiar with any principles of tank designing based on years of real combat experience and improvements in tank designing from both Soviet and NATO blocks.

 

[Damian]

Obviously however, the best design is where turret is unmanned and crew sits in the hull.

Whole protection then, can be focused on hull, unmanned turret do not need heavy protection, and can be just treated as expandable, replaceable weapon module.

 

[farhan_9909]

There are two schools that solved this problem perfectly, but with two different solutions with several advantages and disadvantages.

First is Soviet school that solved that problem by drastic inclination of side turret armor to hide it behind frontal armor, so it is not visible for enemy, firing to a tank 60 degrees frontal arc.

Example turets of T-72B/T-90, T-84M and T-90A.

Advantages:

- Small size of turret,
- Less weight of turret,

Disadvantages:

- Weak side protection, vurnable to direct side shots,
- Possible problems with turret balance due to very heavy front.

Another school is western school where side armor is more exposed, but protected by very thick composite armor modules.

Advantages:

- More uniform protection not only at the frontal 60 degrees arc, but also beyond,
- Better protection against direct side shots,
- Better turret balance due to counterweight in form of thick side armor and turret bustle,

Disadvantages:

- Turret is bigger,
- More weight of turret.

And for Your informations, these drawings are based on exterior and interior photos, messures on real tanks, and eventually estimations when no other possibility to do messurements was in our range. It is also based on different sources, official and non official.

These are two, best tank designing schools, Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian) and NATO, the Asian tank designing school is somewhat strange, because designers there start to mix up design solution from both older designing schools, and these design solution from two different sources are not exactly suited to work well with eachother.

For example turret geometry is mostly takes from NATO tanks, but with armor placement like in Soviet tanks, it means that side armor is exposed and have weak protection made from simple and thin RHA armor.

I do not know why in Asia it is done that way, it just looks like designers there are not familiar with any principles of tank designing based on years of real combat experience and improvements in tank designing from both Soviet and NATO blocks.

while the Asian countries does has tanks war experience as well
and those Asian countries has been helped by the experienced countries aswell

anyway which tank is in the above picture.the turret is very small

 

[Damian]

while the Asian countries does has tanks war experience as well

Not as huge as Soviet Union and NATO countries gained through years of warfare around the globe.

For example side hull protection of Chinese tanks consits of basic side hull armor, that in all modern tanks is max ~60-80mm thick. However Chinese do not use heavy ballistic skirts neither ERA to achieve better protection for hull sides. Al Khalid inherits this unfortunate design solution.

Soviet and NATO designs use or ERA over thin rubber side skirts, or heavy composite ballistic skirts, Chinese tanks have only thin sheet metal, perhaps with sort of rubber as addon reinforcement.

There are of course other details, like very exposed and weak protected turret roof on some ZTZ-99 variants, ZTZ-99A2 also have very exposed turret roof due to specific turret geometry. There are many more details, not known to unfamilirized eye.

and those Asian countries has been helped by the experienced countries aswell

It is w rong assumption that this help was something great. For example South Korean K1/K1A1 program. Not many people know that K1 series were in fact designed by General Dynamic Land Systems in USA, not in South Korea, it is also false assumption that K1 is based on M1 Abrams, it only use some components of it (mainly electronics and weapons) but the overall design is inferior, for example lack any survivability feature of M1 series, like complete ammunition isolation from crew on ammunition compartments with blow off panels, in K1 whole ammunition is stored in simple ammo racks in crew compartment.

anyway which tank is in the above picture.the turret is very small

Write this in proper english, as for now it is non understandable babble.

 

[farhan_9909]

Not as huge as Soviet Union and NATO countries gained through years of warfare around the globe.

For example side hull protection of Chinese tanks consits of basic side hull armor, that in all modern tanks is max ~60-80mm thick. However Chinese do not use heavy ballistic skirts neither ERA to achieve better protection for hull sides. Al Khalid inherits this unfortunate design solution.

Soviet and NATO designs use or ERA over thin rubber side skirts, or heavy composite ballistic skirts, Chinese tanks have only thin sheet metal, perhaps with sort of rubber as addon reinforcement.

There are of course other details, like very exposed and weak protected turret roof on some ZTZ-99 variants, ZTZ-99A2 also have very exposed turret roof due to specific turret geometry. There are many more details, not known to unfamilirized eye.



It is w rong assumption that this help was something great. For example South Korean K1/K1A1 program. Not many people know that K1 series were in fact designed by General Dynamic Land Systems in USA, not in South Korea, it is also false assumption that K1 is based on M1 Abrams, it only use some components of it (mainly electronics and weapons) but the overall design is inferior, for example lack any survivability feature of M1 series, like complete ammunition isolation from crew on ammunition compartments with blow off panels, in K1 whole ammunition is stored in simple ammo racks in crew compartment.



Write this in proper english, as for now it is non understandable babble.

well ten those Asian countries for example has tanks war experience as well.

The biggest tank battle fought After world was 2 were by pak and India
the battle of chwinda
and the battle of assal uttar

and many more such tank battles aswell between the 2 countries
so Indeed these 2 countries has a good tank warfare experience
while Pakistan has pioneered the mountain tanks warfare from the last 10 years against the taliban.

Indeed your right about problem of very thin sheet as side skirts in the Chinese tanks aswell the basic AK

but in the latest ak1.it has got very thick side skirts.if you want i will post the pic

and i meant that you posted the drawing of a tank with the crew in the hull and the unmanned turret.this tank really exist or just drawing?

 

[farhan_9909]

basic AK.these are not even true skirts but just thin metal sheets

and this is the AK1.just look tak the thickened side skirts.i just doubt any western tank has that thickened side skirts(i might be wrong)

 

[Damian]

well ten those Asian countries for example has tanks war experience as well.

The biggest tank battle fought After world was 2 were by pak and India
the battle of chwinda
and the battle of assal uttar

and many more such tank battles aswell between the 2 countries
so Indeed these 2 countries has a good tank warfare experience
while Pakistan has pioneered the mountain tanks warfare from the last 10 years against the taliban.

Battles are not everything, combat experience is one thing, the second is to get there scientists and designers, and get them data to analize, and to improve, but to do that, You need a well builded tank industry at this particular time, to make improvements as soon as possible. This needs to be continous development.

ndeed your right about problem of very thin sheet as side skirts in the Chinese tanks aswell the basic AK

but in the latest ak1.it has got very thick side skirts.if you want i will post the pic

You can post photo of these side skirts.

and i meant that you posted the drawing of a tank with the crew in the hull and the unmanned turret.this tank really exist or just drawing?

One of several concept works made by US R&D agency DARPA, but there were projects that ended as technology demonstrators, test beds and prototypes as well, several of them below:

TTB (Tank Test Bed) based on M1 Abrams (USA).

NGP-EGS (Federal Republic Germany). Note: It does not have turret, it is only turret weight simulator.

Object 195 (Russian Federation)

Object 477 Hammer/Boxer (Ukraine). Note: It is only vehicle components test bed, not some of the more advanced prototypes.

Of course there were many more projects, their photos are just classified.

 

[Damian]

basic AK.these are not even true skirts but just thin metal sheets

and this is the AK1.just look tak the thickened side skirts.i just doubt any western tank has that thickened side skirts(i might be wrong)

Photo with claimed thickened side skirts does not show details, only changed design of side skirts, photo from the front and the ground level would reveal more, if side skirts are really thickened, or have just different design.

 

[hest]

For Soviet tanks of late 80s (T-72B, T-80U/UD) safe manouvering angle is +/- 35 (70 degrees) for turret, while requirement was about half for hull, +/- 15 degrees against APFSDS (70 mm steel + reactive armour panel).

For Western tanks it was +/- 25 (50 degrees) for turret, and ricochet angle was no more than 10 degrees for hull ( APFSDS).
----------------------------------------

Obviously however, the best design is where turret is unmanned and crew sits in the hull.

Whole protection then, can be focused on hull, unmanned turret do not need heavy protection, and can be just treated as expandable, replaceable weapon module.

It is erroneous idea to shift from current turrets which can sustain multiple hits and still perform duty for an unmanned and vulnerable module with which tank will loose ability to perform task after a single impact.

You can have as example future Armata which approaches this developement:

Unmanned combat module which consists of low profile "base" with new generation reactive armour, protected against APFSDS, missiles, etc, and proper "gun" which sustains hits of automatic cannon (30 up to 40 mm) protected mantle and bore against projectile and fragmentarry effect of nearby explosion (missile, etc).

Allows ability to sustain multiple impacts and still preserve firepower, with safest configuration with crew located in isolated module within hull, from ammunition and also isolated engine compartment (disability of ammunition, unmanned module or engine compartment does not prevent work of the rest).

Hatches were reduced from 3 to only 2 allowing increase in top protection.

 

[Damian]

For Soviet tanks of late 80s (T-72B, T-80U/UD) safe manouvering angle is +/- 35 (70 degrees) for turret, while requirement was about half for hull, +/- 15 degrees against APFSDS (70 mm steel + reactive armour panel).

For Western tanks it was +/- 25 (50 degrees) for turret, and ricochet angle was no more than 10 degrees for hull ( APFSDS).

This is a false statement of false Soviet data.

Western tanks have side turret armor with thickness ranging from ~300mm to ~400mm, this is thickness at 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, at 30 degrees it will increase to ~600-800mm (of composite armor!) depending on design. So protection for turret is full 60 degrees, so +/- 30-35 degrees for right or left, same as in Soviet tanks, just done differently which Lidsky is unable to understand.

It is erroneous idea to shift from current turrets which can sustain multiple hits and still perform duty for an unmanned and vulnerable module with which tank will loose ability to fire after a single impact.

Low profile unmanned turret is light, and claiming that single hit will damage it beyond useability is as false and wrong as You silly pseudo knowledge, there were incident of penetrated tanks, that remained fully functional.

You can have as example future Armata which approaches this developement:

Unmanned combat module which consists of low profile "base" with new generation reactive armour, protected against APFSDS, missiles, etc, and proper "gun" which sustains hits of automatic cannon, protected mantle and bore against effect of fragments of nearby explosion of projectiles, missiles.

Allows ability to sustain multiple impacts and still preserve firepower, with safest configuration with crew located in isolated module within hull, from ammunition and also isolated engine compartment (disability of ammunition, unmanned module or engine compartment does not prevent work of the rest).

Hatches were reduced from 3 to only 2 allowing increase in top protection.

This is not Main Battle Tank based on "Armata", but "Armata" with combat module developed by different company than "Armata" developer UVZ.

Object 195 also have lightly armored unmanned turret module.

We need to remember that hull itself weight approx 30-35 tons, manned turrets weight is from 15 tons to even 25-30 tons.

So it is desired to reduce turret weight as much as possible, and focus whole weight used for armor on hull, this is why whole crew in hull, and unmanned turret should be as small and light as possible. The model of "Armata" based fire support vehicle (because this plastic model is not MBT) have unnececary big and probably heavy unmanned turret module. For the sake of Russian army, it will be good if UVZ will not repeat the same wrong design.

 

[militarysta]

For Soviet tanks of late 80s (T-72B, T-80U/UD) safe manouvering angle is +/- 35 (70 degrees) for turret, while requirement was about half for hull, +/- 15 degrees against APFSDS (70 mm steel + reactive armour panel).

For Western tanks it was +/- 25 (50 degrees) for turret, and ricochet angle was no more than 10 degrees for hull ( APFSDS).

It's again so stupid sentences taken from btvt and erlier from TiV. It's just nonsens and ordinary lies.

T-80U for 30 degree:

Example -Leopard-2 for 30 degree:

T-80U turret for 30. degree: 540mm LOS
Leopard-2A4 turret for 30 degree: 660mm LOS for turret sides (turet front more then 740mm)

What is bigger 540mm or 660mm?


And values for hull is taken from nowhere becuse in T-72 and T-80U hull have only 80mm thick RHA sides and..nothing more. In western tanks there is ussaly protection from fuel tanks, simmilar hull thick, and heavy balistic skirts. So the angle cant be lower for in reality more "things" (in internal and outernal tank structure) able to stop thread then in Soviet tanks.

And yes -for 30. in all Soviet and ex-Soviet tanks turret protection is lower then in western tanks...
in M1A1/A2 its for 30. degree 800mm LOS in Leopard-2A4 660mm LOS
in T-72B/Ob.188(T-90)it is 600-660mm LOS, in T-80U 540mm LOS, in T-90A (Ob.188A1) 650mm LOS.

So how to hell protection is lower when for the same angle 30. degree LOS thickness is bigger in most western tanks?

 

[Damian]

It's again so stupid sentences taken from btvt and erlier from TiV. It's just nonsens and ordinary lies.

Well it's simple, authors of such statements have just very small, if any, knowledge about non soviet designs (and this is a fact, many of their conclusions just amuse me when I read them, and compare to the sources close to TACOM, TARDEC, RARDE or BWB or books with informations based on archieves from these sources), and this is also a typical way to make them feel better + it is a good advertisement tool.

 

[hest]

This is a false statement of false Soviet data.

Western tanks have side turret armor with thickness ranging from ~300mm to ~400mm, this is thickness at 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, at 30 degrees it will increase to ~600-800mm (of composite armor!) depending on design. So protection for turret is full 60 degrees, so +/- 30-35 degrees for right or left, same as in Soviet tanks, just done differently which Lidsky is unable to understand.

Side armour will give limited protection. Such side armour thickness is equivalent to about 200-240 mm (maximum) of RHA against APFSDS. This may be enought protection for 20, up to 25 degrees but will be penetrated by most weapons from 30 degrees.

In case of another tanks as Leopard 2, side hull protection is extended only over part of turret, at angle of 30 degrees it can be penetrated even by older weapons.

Low profile unmanned turret is light, and claiming that single hit will damage it beyond useability is as false and wrong as You silly pseudo knowledge, there were incident of penetrated tanks, that remained fully functional.

It is an error to project module which will be taken out by anything bigger than 30 mm and imply loss of ability to perform combat for the sake of minimal weight.

In fact even tanks with traditional configuration could sustain more hits and still preserve ability to fire.

This is not Main Battle Tank based on "Armata", but "Armata" with combat module developed by different company than "Armata" developer UVZ.

It is "assault tank" based on Armata plattform designed by KBTM Omsk (part of UVZ). Armata MBT is designed by UKBTM.

But they will share similar configuration, being based on same plattform.

Object 195 also have lightly armored unmanned turret module.

Wrong.

We need to remember that hull itself weight approx 30-35 tons, manned turrets weight is from 15 tons to even 25-30 tons.

So it is desired to reduce turret weight as much as possible, and focus whole weight used for armor on hull, this is why whole crew in hull, and unmanned turret should be as small and light as possible. The model of "Armata" based fire support vehicle (because this plastic model is not MBT) have unnececary big and probably heavy unmanned turret module. For the sake of Russian army, it will be good if UVZ will not repeat the same wrong design.

It is best design, preserving both unmanned turret module advantages (reduced weight, low profile), and ability to sustain multiple hits without loosing ability to perform in combat.

 

[militarysta]

Side armour will give limited protection. Such side armour thickness is equivalent to about 200-240 mm (maximum) of RHA against APFSDS. This may be enought protection for 20, up to 25 degrees but will be penetrated by most weapons from 30 degrees.

1. "limted protection" becuse of what? Any evidence that for 30. thicker (660mm in Leopard-2 and 800mm in M1A2) turret side then in russain tanks (540mm T-80U, 650mm in T-90A...) will be whorse?

2. this "200-240 mm (maximum)" is taken wfrom what? It's bullshit of the decade. Any sources, andy evidence?

 

[Damian]

Side armour will give limited protection. Such side armour thickness is equivalent to about 200-240 mm (maximum) of RHA against APFSDS. This may be enought protection for 20, up to 25 degrees but will be penetrated by most weapons from 30 degrees.

In case of another tanks as Leopard 2, side hull protection is extended only over part of turret, at angle of 30 degrees it can be penetrated even by older weapons.

You base Your knowledge about 3rd generation NATO MBT's on these silly statements from other anti-NATO sources, so this all is false. Currently we have much better knowledge on capabilities of western armors, that are much higher than any Russian language sources provides.

It is an error to project module which will be taken out by anything bigger than 30 mm and imply loss of ability to perform combat for the sake of minimal weight.

In fact even tanks with traditional configuration could sustain more hits and still preserve ability to fire.

And who says about levels of protection? Only You are making idiotic assumptions, and pure fantasy.

I said that turret module needs to be as small and light as possible, and can be even expandable, in such configuration more important is survivability of vehicle and crew, but it does not mean that small unmanned turret will not have descent protection.

It is only Your technological rascism, when You claim that other nations development will not provide descent design solutions.

It is "assault tank" based on Armata plattform designed by KBTM Omsk (part of UVZ). Armata MBT is designed by UKBTM.

But they will share similar configuration, being based on same plattform.

Wrong, only hull configuration will be same, OKBTM propose different turret module than UKBTM, and this is what I said... moron.

Wrong.

To the contrary, from all descriptions, it is lightly armored turret module, it is even visible on these low quality photos, that there is no place for composite armor cavities.

It is best design, preserving both unmanned turret module advantages (reduced weight, low profile), and ability to sustain multiple hits without loosing ability to perform in combat.

It is Your pure fantasy, it one of the worst designs I ever seen, completely idiotic, and against any design principles of unmanned turret modules design philosophy.

 

[hest]

It's again so stupid sentences taken from btvt and erlier from TiV. It's just nonsens and ordinary lies.

T-80U for 30 degree:

Example -Leopard-2 for 30 degree:

T-80U turret for 30. degree: 540mm LOS
Leopard-2A4 turret for 30 degree: 660mm LOS for turret sides (turet front more then 740mm)

What is bigger 540mm or 660mm?

It is an error to equiparate hull thickness to frontal armour as I explained on my other post.

From 30-35 degrees Soviet turrets are protected by frontal armour. In case of Leopard 2, it has exposed sides. From 30-35 degrees side armour will not provide enought protection, and in Leopard it covers only part of turret. In fact from those angles it can be taken out by old weapons at exposed vulnerable zone.

And values for hull is taken from nowhere becuse in T-72 and T-80U hull have only 80mm thick RHA sides and..nothing more. In western tanks there is ussaly protection from fuel tanks, simmilar hull thick, and heavy balistic skirts. So the angle cant be lower for in reality more "things" (in internal and outernal tank structure) able to stop thread then in Soviet tanks.

T-72B and T-80U/UD had side armour of 70-80 mm of RHA and reactive armour panels which gave significant lateral impulse against projectles allowing combined protection against APFSDS from 15 degrees (front).

In all Western tanks it was (still is) simple RHA and panel which allowed more limited protection, less than 10 degrees.

And yes -for 30. in all Soviet and ex-Soviet tanks turret protection is lower then in western tanks...
in M1A1/A2 its for 30. degree 800mm LOS in Leopard-2A4 660mm LOS
in T-72B/Ob.188(T-90)it is 600-660mm LOS, in T-80U 540mm LOS, in T-90A (Ob.188A1) 650mm LOS.

So how to hell protection is lower when for the same angle 30. degree LOS thickness is bigger in most western tanks?

It will be lower due to exposure of lateral part of turret. 20-25 degrees vs 30-35 degrees (frontal armour).

 

[methos]

Don't feed the troll!

 

[Damian]

It is an error to equiparate hull thickness to frontal armour as I explained on my other post.

From 30-35 degrees Soviet turrets are protected by frontal armour. In case of Leopard 2, it has exposed sides. From 30-35 degrees side armour will not provide enought protection, and in Leopard it covers only part of turret. In fact from those angles it can be taken out by old weapons at exposed vulnerable zone.

It is completely idiotic claim.

You think that NATO designers were some bunch of morons who were not capable to design vehicle properly?

Wrong, they had much grater experience than Soviet designers with composite armors design.

Side turret armor design in NATO tanks have the same as front turret design, it means it have the same properties, only it is thinner, but at 30 degrees from turret longitudinal axis it have the same thickness as frontal armor.

T-72B and T-80U/UD had side armour of 70-80 mm of RHA and reactive armour panels which gave significant lateral impulse against projectles allowing combined protection against APFSDS from 15 degrees (front).

In all Western tanks it was (still is) simple RHA and panel which allowed more limited protection, less than 10 degrees.

BS, complete BS. In western taks side armor as in Soviet tanks is also RHA, but, side skirts are composite design. I seen M1 Abrams side heavy ballistic skirts structure, it is composite, same for Leopard 2 and Leclerc (which I also seen internal structure).